Description:Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.

The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue
available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal.
Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a
publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current
issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.
Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.
For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year
moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.

Terms Related to the Moving Wall

Fixed walls: Journals with no new volumes being added to the archive.

Absorbed: Journals that are combined with another title.

Complete: Journals that are no longer published or that have been
combined with another title.

In order to preview this item and view access options please enable javascript.

Preview or purchase options are not available

Get Access to this Item

Access JSTOR through a library

You may be able to access to this item through one of over 9,000 institutions that subscribe to JSTOR. Check the list of participating
institutions to find a participating library near you. Unfortunately, there are no individual access options available for this article

Abstract

This study uses hearing transcripts to examine judge-defendant interaction in a trial-type setting. The setting is a public housing eviction hearing; judges are eviction board members and defendants are tenants facing eviction for non-payment of rent. All tenants in the sample were formally evicted, but in each case the execution of the eviction order was stayed on the condition that the tenant pay his rent. Two forms of verbal interaction are identified. The first, "moralizing" is deemed present when one or more board members directs a degrading remark toward the tenant. The second, "cooling in" is deemed present when one or more board members directs a helping remark toward the tenant and the tenant in some way indicates his receptivity. When moralizing occurs the eviction hearing contains all of Garfinkel's (1956) requisites for successful status degradation ceremonies. Consequently it was hypothesized that tenants who had been moralized would be less successful in clearing their rent debts than tenants who had not been moralized, but if successful, more likely get into rent payment trouble again. It was also hypothesized that tenants who had been "cooled in" would be more likely to clear their rent debt than tenants who had not been cooled and that, having cleared their rent debt, they would be less likely to recidivate. All predictions except the hypothesized association between cooling in and recidivism are supported by the data. Although cell sizes grow uncomfortably small, the predicted relations persist after controlling for obvious sources of spuriousness. The conclusion discusses the analogy between the housing eviction hearing and the criminal trial.